Pages

September 12, 2006

Ortiz Aims For 50, Discusses MVP

David Ortiz needsonlythree home runs to set a new Red Sox single-season record. Tiz has 48; Jimmie Foxx belted 50 in 1938.

Just going to take a couple of good swings, right? I'll be swinging out of my ass, for sure. ... Everyone is expecting me to do it. It's been out there, what, 68 years, so I guess people would be excited about that. It would be a wonderful thing.

Ortiz also says he has zero chance of winning the AL MVP Award.

I'm right there, but I'm not going to win it. They give it to Alex one year, even though his team was in last place, so now they can't play that BS anymore, just because your team didn't make it. ...

But they'll vote for a position player, use that as an excuse. They're talking about Jeter a lot, right? He's done a great job, he's having a great season, but Jeter is not a 40-homer hitter or an RBI guy. It doesn't matter how much you've done for your ball club, the bottom line is, the guy who hits 40 home runs and knocks in 100, that's the guy you know helped your team win games.

Don't get me wrong -- he's a great player, having a great season, but he's got a lot of guys in that lineup. Top to bottom, you've got a guy who can hurt you. Come hit in this lineup, see how good you can be.

And when asked who he might vote for, Ortiz contradicted himself and fell into the same trap he just criticized the media for (which Eric Wilbur also picked up on).

All depends on who makes the playoffs. Dye is having an unbelievable season, an incredible year. Konerko, too. Morneau, he's having a great season, but in Minnesota, there's no publicity. I bet you nobody knows who he is.

Where a team finishes in the standings should have absolutely nothing to do with who wins any award. ... We'll have lots of fun with figuring out who should get the MVP Award in October.

Julian Tavarez's commentsabout the boos he's heard at Fenway have been an interesting subplot for the past few weeks. He has been uncommonly open and honest about it has affected him. Last weekend, after being booed in his previous start but aware that the fans' reception to him had warmed, he tipped his cap while walking off the field.

I feel really happy about how they cheered for me from the bullpen. Last time it wasn't that way. They booed me in the bullpen. They booed me when they said my name. I got used to the boos but it hurt.

Steven Krasner, on Wily Mo Pena's baserunning mistake on Sunday that ended with him joining Ortiz on second base:

The baserunning faux pas cost the Sox an out and potentially a bigger inning. But a team can put up with an occasional blunder if a guy can put a charge into the ball the way Pena can.

I agree, even if his name ends with a "ez".

Krasner adds that now is the time for 2007 auditions. And Francona has said he'll be looking at guys like Dustin Pedroia, David Murphy, Kason Gabbard, Craig Hansen and Manny Delcarmen with an eye towards their roles in 2007. ... I would love seeing Pena, Murphy, and Pedroia in the lineup every day. We already know what Nixon and Loretta can (and cannot) do.

Coco Crisp reinjured his left index finger on Saturday: "In my second at-bat, when I hit the ball off the end of the bat, I felt like a pop, like when you crack your finger, and it just started hurting. It just kind of re-aggravated my ligament that I hurt when I broke my finger."

Curt Schilling may start one game of Saturday's day-night doubleheader at Yankee Stadium, possibly opposite Randy Johnson. ... Kevin Youkilis's .391 OBP is the best in the majors among leadoff hitters.

74 comments:

In my opinion I think Ortiz's comments and sarcasm make him come off as a crybaby taking shots at Jeter and A-rod. No offense to all you Red Sox fans who will now act like I crucified his family. I'm looking at it objectivly. I would feel the same way no matter what logo was on his hat.

It's also funny how people go off on somebody and insulting them or whatever and then say "Don't get me wrong" so and so is a great guy, and it's makes it all better....

Hitler was a tactical genius with a good plan on paper with the charisma to match. He would've been a great leader if it weren't for that whole holocaust thing. Don't get me wrong, he was an evil dictator.......etc......

On an unrelated topic, the AL central/WC looks like it will be really fun to watch down the stretch, I'm also pulling for the Giants in the NL WC so they will play the Mets. I hope Bonds destroys Mets pitching.

In my opinion I think Ortiz's comments and sarcasm make him come off as a crybaby taking shots at Jeter and A-rod. No offense to all you Red Sox fans who will now act like I crucified his family.

I'm not sure why you would assume that would be the reaction. The people who comment here are a few steps above the "Ortiz Rooolz!! Jeter Sucks, LOL" crowd.

And I'll say it again -- no one can rip the Sox like a Sox fan. We're the absolute best at it, so don't even try to match us.

One thing that has always annoyed me about Ortiz is his chronic whining about called strikes (though that has been less apparent this season). Home plate umpiring has been absolutely horrible for the past few years, but it's that way for everyone. Tiz should stop acting like all umps are out to get him.

In this discussion, he's obviously frustrated, though the Daily News headline calling it a "rip" of Jeter is a bit of an exaggeration.

I would like to see video of him saying these things, because the Boston media has been known to take things out of context from time to time.

Come hit in this lineup, see how good you can be.

This could be one of at least four things:

(a) a shot at the front office;

(b) a jab at his teammates;

(c) frustration at how the lineup was decimated with injiuries during August, one of the worst months in Red Sox history; or

(d) a not-very-well articulated summary of what he was saying about hitting amid Damon, Abreu, Slappy and HGHiambi and how he's susceptible to being pitched around.

...

Gutch, your EDIT post reminds me of people who say "I'm not a racist, but ..." and then blurt out some racist bullshit.

^Besides Boston obviously. Look at it from a baseball fan point of view and not a Red Sox fan point of view. Do you think Bonds in the playoffs is good for baseball?

and as for this comment:I'm not sure why you would assume that would be the reaction. The people who comment here are a few steps above the "Ortiz Rooolz!! Jeter Sucks, LOL" crowd.

I'm glad it's like that, and people can have relatively mature converstions without reverting to "Boston/Yankees Suck" chants. I hate it when the all of Yankee stadium chants "Boston sucks" and the same for Fenway. I think it makes the fans look stupid. I think sarcastic cheers like at the begining of 2005 for Mariano are better

gutch220, I try to ignore your Red Sox bullshit cuz you're a Yankee fan but I can't let the Bonds thing go. There's a young kid in Philly, having a monster season in only his 2nd year in the bigs. He's doing it in front of one of the most critical crowds in the majors after his team traded away a sure-fire 40-homer guy so he could play. They should be having fucking parades for the kid. Yet all anyone can talk about is whether he's on 'roids. I blame your cheating, hypocritical, arrogant dickhead of a Barry Bonds for this. A guy that was already headed for the HoF, but that wasn't good enough for him. And don't give me that 'nothing's been proven' bullshit. Go join Joe Morgan and the other moronic apologists in the San Francisco media. Trust your eyes, Gutch.

I hate the Mets, I still like Barry Bonds, and I'd LOVE to see him destroy the Mets in the playoffs. (Although that would mean I'd have to be watching, and the chance of my watching NL playoffs this year are pretty slim.)

Bonds is a scapegoat for what is probably a very widespread problem. But it's only a problem for you if you make it one.

I personally don't give a shit who's using what. They're grown men, they can make their own choices whether and what to use. If baseball didn't have cheating, it would be the only human enterprise on earth, sports or otherwise, that was free of it. I don't see why I should care one way or the other.

Nope, I don't think Bonds was the first to cheat. What irks me is that he didn't need to. Obviously, it's a complex subject, since his employers condoned it. And nobody says anything when 300 LB. NFL lineman can run as fast as Jimmy Brown did 40 years ago, cuz THEY HAVE TESTING. But I can still root for him to fail miserably, and dump on everyone who doesn't dump on him for not taking the high road.

Speaking of umpires and their personal, interpretive, shifting strike zones, has anyone considered that it may be impossible for the human eye to actually judge the zone? What about cellphone technology? I have no idea what I'm talking about, but is there a way that K-ZONE or something similar can be loaded onto a cellphone, and the ump just has to look at the phone as the pitch crosses the plate? Does this make sense?

When gutch compared the "Ortiz roolz" people to people who chant their hatred of the rival at the game, I too thought it was a bad comparison. I'm smart but I love to hate my rival out loud. So I was glad to see that Laura and Lauro agreed that the "___ suck" chants are okay. In fact, as someone who stopped using the word "suck" years ago, I have to say, "Yankees Suck" is the only time I'll use it. I stopped using "suck" because, obviously, of the implication: You suck, i.e. you'd do only what a woman or a gay man would do.

Granted, almost every phrase, from "what a gyp" to "scalpers" offends somebody, and when you use them, it doesn't mean you're some horrible person who hates a group of people, especially once the phrase goes mainstream. But, hey, I'm choosing to weed out those phrases, even if they're only "wrong" semantically. I think language is a good place to start, when trying to stop the hate.

Don't think language and semantics affect society? Well, if I'd said Allan and Allette, you would've known what I meant above. F you, male-dominated society.

Nonetheless, Yankees Suck. (Oh, and I justify saying it by telling myself I'm saying it to piss off only the particular Yankee fans who are homophobic mysogynists, who wouldn't want to hear about their boys engaging in gay activites, or being, god forbid, women.)

I blame your cheating, hypocritical, arrogant dickhead of a Barry Bonds for this. A guy that was already headed for the HoF, but that wasn't good enough for him. And don't give me that 'nothing's been proven' bullshit. Go join Joe Morgan and the other moronic apologists in the San Francisco media.

I'm not a Bonds fan by any means. I just want him to go off on the Mets in the playoffs because I don't like the Mets. It's kinda like throwing a pig into a hungry lion's cage (the lion being on steroids).

I enjoy being the magnet for everyones hatred on this site because you guys will disagree with almost everything I say. But to say "I try to ignore your Red Sox bullshit cuz you're a Yankee fan" is pretty arrogant on your part, so if you call ALL yankees fans arrogant you would be a hypocrate.

Since everyone keeps pussyfooting around the question. Who do you WANT in the playoffs. Obviously most of you will say the Sox for the AL East, but I'm more interested in everything else. Here's what I would like

Those suck chants are just annoying to me, thats all. i feel like a mindless drone. But if somebody wants to do them, do them on the streets of the other teams home ballpark and try not to get beat up. at least that takes balls.

L-- glad you caught the "balls" comment. If he'd been being ironic, it would've been perfect. I argue with my girlfriend on that one all the time. I say to "have balls" implies that "you have the ability to do something only a MAN can do." She keeps saying "it just means you're brave," or whatever. Which, yeah, that's what it's supposed to mean, but can't something that doesn't have balls be brave? She says, "Well, if I'm saying a girl 'has balls,' I'm complimenting her." And I go right back to my original argument.

A good replacement for "balls" is "gonads" (that's 'nads' for short for you extreme kids out there), because both ovaries and testes are gonads.

I totally agree with you on pussy. As a straight dude, I can't not sound like a macho prick* when I say "I love vaginas," but, I'm just saying, when I see my girlfriend naked, I don't say, "Hey, cover up that sign of considerably un-male WEAKNESS." If any dude is like that, he's not exactly gonna make the girl desire him.

*It's different when you call someone a "dick" or "prick," because that just means you're mean or whatever, as opposed to weak. I do use those terms sometimes. Maybe it's because I am male, so it's okay for ME to use them, or maybe because there aren't a lot of choices, so I choose the one that involves my own sex.

Living in CT . Where everything is virtually all yankees all day. The Mets are kind of pushed aside like redheaded stepchildren. So I will root for them.

Woti 's comments about phillie fans being one of the most critical fans > i have to disagree I was there this year for a sox game and they are nowhere near as outspoken as red sox, yankee or even cub fans... Baseball is secondary to football in philly always will be.

And Papi .....shhhhhhhhhhh

Talk about a-rod , sheff, the unit, giambi, damon, anyone else but Jeter....He is what he is.....

If you watch him play everyday it's sickening how nothing botheres this kid he is a consumate professional, who handles his busineess with class

L-girl:I am with you all the way on language, and if 9casey wants to tell us that's what's wrong with the country, I say bring it on.

You know whats wrong with this counry: My wife and my 2 kids stayed at a courtyard marriott about two weeks ago and I paid like 250.00 for the room. On the table they had a bottle of water. and a ticket attached saying if I opened it it will cost me 2.50 .Are you kidding me. That's whats wrong with this country.

So what did I do I drank it left a 5 dollar with a note saying I will get the the next round you cheap bastards.....The stupid things I do to make a point

jeez, you guys/girls take things too literally. "Balls" is just a figure of speach, thats it. No need to over analyze ever word. And "pussyfoot" has nothing to do with female anatomy. It's slang for "dancing" or "dogding" the subject at hand. Ever watch a cat slowly stalk it's prey and how softly it steps? Thats what "pussyfoot" comes from.

as far as that bottle of water situation, I would have just taken it and say there was never a bottle of water there. I don't know

Don't worry, she's "one of us." Meaning a strong liberal. She refuses to say "scalper." I think she knows what I'm getting at, but it's the type of thing where, you grow up thinking balls means strength, so you just say it interchangeably with "spine." Look, I can't explain her thoughts, quit grillin' me under these hot lights.

L-girl, Sox are in TO next weekend. You could dress in cammy gear, hide out at the Skydome Hotel and shoot him with one of those suction-tipped bow and arrows we used to have as kids. Probably scare the shit out of him.

Just a sobering note in the midst of all this lighthearted chatter about balls and pussies from your neighborhood ethicist, who had to run to the toilet and vomit during the Barry Bonds exchange. To wit...

The fact that other players have cheated or are cheating does not excuse Barry Bonds in the least, nor is he a "scapegoat." He is the only one slaughtering records using forbidden substances, and has earned every bit of attention he is getting for it. Nor does the fact that cheating occurs elsewhere in society justify his conduct. I doubt anyone would use this excuse to exonerate Duke Cunningham or Enron. Finally, using steroids is ILLEGAL, a felony. Allowing a player to profit by using illegal means puts pressure on all players to do likewise, and absolutely encourages kids to engage in conduct that is harmful to them.Barry Bonds, AND Jason Giambi, AND Gary Scheffield, are scum, and the sooner they vanish from the field the better off the game, the society and the public will be. The fact that other players have so far escaped detection does NOT entitle these arrogant frauds to avoid appropriate punishment, any more than we should let murderers go free because some murders are never solved. That's a really, really bad argument, and I'm constantly amazed that anybody has the balls to make it.

Sorry, Jack. Just because something is illegal doesn't make it wrong. As an ethicist, I'm sure you know that.

Cheating in sports, in my opinion, is part of the game, and doesn't bother me. Since I can't possibly know who is cheating and who is not, I don't worry about it. Unlike Enron-type cheating, which ruined innocent people's lives, cheating in sports hurts no one except the users themselves.

I like Barry Bonds, and I do think he's being used as a scapegoat, or a poster-boy, or something of that nature, perhaps I'm not getting at the right word.

He is the only one slaughtering records using forbidden substances

The name Mark McGwire comes to mind. Not proven, but as strongly suspected as anyone else.

Sorry to make you nauseous. I know the feeling every time I listen to the self-righteous hand-wringing from the holier-than-thou sports media.

Allowing a player to profit by using illegal means puts pressure on all players to do likewise

Baseball has encouraged using any means possible to boost offensive, and both management and the players union have looked the other way because it was profitable and good for the sport.

The sport didn't just "allow" players to juice, they practically mandated it.

That's why I find the attention paid to Barry Bonds so hypocritical and self-righteous.

, and absolutely encourages kids to engage in conduct that is harmful to them.

This is something people say, but is there any evidence to back it up?

My pretty considerable experience with kids leads me to believe that steroid use among professional athletes has little or no effect on the choices of ordinary children.

Kids who are elite athletes and on a trajectory for professional sports, or an attempt at them - that's different. In that hyper-competitive world, I doubt there is anything you could do to dissuade cheating except draconian penalties, zero-tolerance rules and such. Testing and banning at the major-league level certainly wouldn't have any effect.

Laura, you couldn’t be more off base if you were in the Goodyear blimp.

1) Not everything that is illegal is unethical but knowingly BREAKING THE LAW is per se unethical, except in two situations: when it is civil disobedience (which requires breaking the law openly…no sign of Barry here!), or when it is done to accomplish a greater good. Even Bonds, that preening, perjuring, sociopathic creep, wouldn’t try to argue that making more millions for Barry qualifies as “a greater good.”

2) Mark McGwire and Sammy Sosa weren’t caught while they were breaking records. They were lucky; that doesn’t change anything regarding Bonds. Bonds is the only one chasing Aaron and Ruth after his steroid use has been established to all but absolute certainty. He is definitely a poster boy, and has earned it. He is no scapegoat. He's guilty as hell.

3) “Nobody is hurt?” When I talked to Frank Shorter, who heads up the Olympics anti-doping effort, he told me that he became a zealot on the subject when he realized that the three runners who finished ahead of him in his last Olympic race were later banned for doping. You don’t think that’s harm? Every steroid-assisted homerun does harm, every title and MVP race that Bonds wins that would have gone to another player absent his steroid use is harm. Every game the Red Sox lost because of a juiced up Giambi (the 2003 play-offs come to mind) is harm. Grady Little lost his job (not that I was sorry about it., to name one individual who was hurt. The players on the Sox aren't hurt when someone goes to the Series instead of them because a player is cheating? Of COURSE there’s harm, financial, career and reputational. You don’t think Hank Aaron will be harmed if Bonds steals his record? I don’t comprehend how you can even venture that argument. It's indefensible.

4) Baseball did not in any way force or encourage or "mandate" honest players to cheat. There has been am MLB rule against using banned substances since 1991, and that was redundant: baseball doesn’t have to re-legislate what is already illegal for everyone else. Yeah: MLB was sloppy and negligent enforcing it. So what? If I leave my wallet on my front step, am I giving you permission to steal it? If I leave my door wide open at night, does that absolve the burglar who comes in and steals everything I have? If a teacher isn’t paying attention, does that mean it’s OK to look at another student’s test paper? If your husband trusts you, that makes it OK to have an affair behind his back??? Or, to return briefly to another topic, if the government has botched security, does that mean it's OK for terrorits to kill people?

For heaven’s sake, what are you talking about? Cheating is unethical…that’s what it is by definition, just like lying (Barry’s good at this too) and stealing. This isn’t open for debate. Since you can't tell whose cheating, it doesn't matter? On what planet does that logic hold? Not here. Not even in Canada.

5) If "everyone" truly cheated, then an argument could be made that a new ethical norm has been established. But nobody claims or believes that 100% or even a majority of baseball players cheat. Why should those who follow the rules be put at a disadvantage while those who cheat benefit? Answer: THEY SHOULDN'T.

6) Kids wear their sports hero’s shoe brands and get jerseys with their names on them; they pretend to be them in schoolyard games, they want to buy products they endorse, but you think they they won’t emulate their taking substances that make them bigger and stronger and make them millions of extra dollars in the bargain? The proof is called “human nature.” The proof is called “the power of role models.” The proof is called"risk-reward ratio." All the data shows that steroid use in high school is epidemic. You don't think the pros have anything to do with that? You’re in denial, and for the life of me, I can’t understand why.

The arguments in favor of Bonds are rationalizations, every last one of them. Knocking them down is like shooting fish in a barrel. He's a disgrace and a blot on the game, and if Bud Selig had any integrity he would have banned him in April and dared him to sue, knowing that in all likelihood he'd be exposed in the process.

What can I tell ya, Jack. I have counter-arguments for almost every one of yours, and the ones I don't, I think are just blatantly ridiculous. What to you sounds like rationalization, to me is good common sense. What to you is rational ethics, sounds to be like sanctimonious, meaningless bombast.

We both love the Sox, and dogs, and apparently theatre, but that's probably all we agree on. But that's enough for this blog! Enjoy.

I'd genuinely like to hear these "counter-arguments," off post if you like...or you can challenge me on my own turf, www.ethicsscoreboard.com, where Barry has been much dissected , unfortunately only in the metaphorical sense. Rationalizations for unethical conduct are essentially lies we tell ourselves to justify otherwise indefensible behavior, and they are insideous, beginning with "everybody does it" (you use that one) through "nobody is hurt" (and that one too.)You're obviously too smart to really confuse rationalizations with "rational argument," so I mean it when I say that I'm genuinely puzzled that anyone, especially anyone who cares about baseball, would say that they "like" Barry Bonds, any more than I comprehend people saying they like OJ Simpson. I don't take debate rhetoric personally (as I hope you don't), but when someone stops making arguments and starts categorizing straightforward traditional analysis as "sanctimonious, [it is not "sanctimonious" to make ethical distinctions; the alternative is societal anrchy] meaningless [What part of "illegal" don't you understand? It is well established that wilfully violating a law violates the ethical value of Citizenship...the duty of anyone living in a society to respect its rules] bombast [Good word...bad application. Conceptual arguments require verbal precision]...well, it sure looks to me like they're out of bullets. Especially when there are no bullets to be had.

The Canadian crack WAS a cheap shot, Laura, and I do apologize. I am, sadly, really good at cheap shots, and I suppress 99% of them, but every now and then I lose my resolve in the heat of the fray. Please accept my apologies. I respect your choices, your journey and your new homeland. I just don't respect cheats.

I think most people don't hate Bonds because of records or drugs. It's beacuse he's black and doesn't smile often. You can be white and pissy, or black and teddy bear-like, and America will accept you, even if you do drugs on the side. But black AND mean? No chance.

>"Conceptual arguments require verbal precision" is certainly not a cheap shot in defense to a claim of "bombast." Bombast is words for the sake of words.> When one argues that rather basic concepts of right and wrong are "meaningless," I think it's peculiar to complain about a comment like "What part of "illegal" don't you understand?"> Fine... don't care about cheating "in sports." But a culture that won't stop cheating in sports is going to have a devil of a time stopping it anywhere else.> People who care about, study and are willing to talk about what's right and what's wrong are often called "self-righteous." Now THAT's a cheap shot, but I get that a lot...though mostly from illegal file-sharers, serial adulterers, teachers who sleep with their students, drug-pushers, polygamists, gay-bashers and child-porn fans. I do value your opinion more, which is why it is so discouraging. But I won't try to shake it any more.

>Ah, yes, Jere, the "they hate him because he's black and not because he's a lying, cheating, misogynistic, perjuring felon, who is currently willing to let his drug-pushing best friend go to jail so he won;t be indicted for perjury" argument.What a crock.

Honestly, I can't believe you want to pick apart my last comment like that. I used the words bombast and self-righteous because I meant them. Not "words for the sake of words" - words chosen because they appropriately express my meaning.

The words are more and more on target, the longer you go on.

I disagree with you. I see this issue very, very differently than you. Not different by a few degrees - different in form, intent, content, colour, shape and shadow. I do not want to discuss it, because the discussion is, to me, tiresome, tiring, annoying, and, above all, pointless.

What part of THAT don't you understand?

Really, I want to be nice to you, but you make it very difficult.

****

Jere, yes indeedy. I didn't want to bring it up, but I'm sure glad you did.

Yeah, people hate Bonds cause he's misogynist. Misogynists are really hated in our society, oh yeah. Boy, when you are mean to women, you just can't get a break. Especially among sports fans! I hear those anti-misogynist chants at the ballpark all the time. "Jee-ter's Sex-ist... Jee-ter's Sex-ist..." Along with the shouts defending gay people, and the anti-war chants. Meanwhile back on planet USA...

To compare Bonds with other black athletes , Like Puckett, Everett, Smith, and Papi. Not really fair, Bonds when all said done will go down as one of the greatest ballplayers off all time, Compare him with Jordan, Woods, Payton, guys like that all time greats in their games... And all Loved and revered....Those guys are treated pretty well and also black......He is treated the way he is because he come off like an arrogant ass and like the world owes him something, he was that way before the whole steriod mess......Tiger Woods never smiles when he plays and he is also not very teddy bear like...Neither was Jordan.....

Ruth was a mythical character that most of us never saw play you ask someone who is not a baseball fan to name a great player most of them who'd say Ruth.

Was the fact that Maris was hated and rooted against by Yankee fans when he broke the single season record then placed with with an asterisk racist, Or just the fact he was taking down an icon.

if Derek Jeter, or Ichiro or anybody black , white , purple, asian, or Latin, Breaks Williams 401 record or Dimaggio's record of 56 they will be celebrated if there is no hints of steriods.

Hell, If Ryan Howard hits 62 a lot of people even myself , will consider him the season record holder.

Bonds justs gives you no reasons to celebrate him, and if that is telling to you , which I beleive you are saying I am a racist,if you are not I apoligize in advance,then I quess we will just agree to disagree like usual..

And yes, I do think Bonds is under-rated, despite those accolades. I'm not saying that's solely because of racism. Because of Bonds's un-media-friendly personality, the sports media has constantly played him as the bad guy, and not celebrated his accomplishments the way they would with a seemingly nicer guy.

The media completely shapes our view of the players, or attempts to (Maris is a great example of that, vs Mantle), and Bonds's personality as packaged by the media is not acceptable to most fans from an African American man.

And now I'm getting out of this thread, because it's ridiculous. See you in more current conversations.

This is exactly my point. The black guys who are celebrated are the ones who didn't "rock the white boat."

You say Jordan is not a teddy bear. Meaning what, that he has a gambling problem? Earlier in this thread I said:

"You can be white and pissy, or black and teddy bear-like, and America will accept you, even if you do drugs on the side"

Drugs, gambling, whatever your vice, it doesn't matter if you smile friendly for the camera, are seen helping sick kids, etc. Jordan's personality was Mr. Nice Guy for the most part.

About Woods: I don't think he's universally beloved. A lot of people thought he was a fluke. Imagine if a blond haired, blue-eyed kid his age had broken into the golf world and did what Woods did?

And Walter Payton: Very unintimidating. ie acceptable.

Another great of his time and sport: Ali. Always crackin jokes, a big time character--it was okay that he practiced "anti-American" behavior. That's his "thing he does on the side that will be 'allowed' as long as he keeps us laughing."

But no, it wasn't sarcasm. It's, again, my point. Nobody had any problem with Nicklaus. But Woods, people call him a fluke and make fun of him a lot. I don't even really know what they make fun of him for. I don't follow golf, but he has done a lot of amazing things, and is kinda not liked by a lot of people, from what I've seen.